Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO: 19 January 2021 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Hoyland, Thomas and Psychogios, Alexandros and Epitropaki, Olga and Damiani, Jonathan and Mukhuty, Sumona and Priestnall, Chris (2021) 'A two-nation investigation of leadership self-perceptions and motivation to lead in early adulthood: The moderating role of gender and socio-economic status.', Leadership and organization development journal., 42 (2). pp. 289-315. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0112

Publisher's copyright statement: This article is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial International Licence 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) and any reuse must be in accordance with the terms outlined by the licence.

Additional information:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk

A two-nation investigation of Leadership Self-perceptions and Motivation to Lead in early adulthood: The moderating role of Gender and Socio-Economic Status

Dr. Thomas Hoyland University of Hull [email protected]

Prof. Alexandros Psychogios Birmingham City University & Cyprus International Institute of Management (CIIM) [email protected]

Prof. Olga Epitropaki Durham University [email protected]

Dr. Jonathan Damiani Nagoya University of Commerce & Business [email protected]

Dr Sumona Mukhuty Manchester Metropolitan University [email protected]

Chris Preistnall University of Hull [email protected]

Paper accepted for publication in the Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Abstract

Purpose: Drawing on social-cognitive and motivational literature of leadership, the present study examines the influence of young adults’ self-perceptions of leadership on their leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead in their future career. We further examine gender and socio-economic status (SES) as important moderators of the proposed relationships.

Design/methodology/approach: The present investigation consists of a two-study research design, based on data collected from young adult samples across two culturally different countries, namely UK (N=267) and Japan (N=127).

Findings: The study presents evidence of self-perceptions of leadership influencing leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead. The results further support the mediating role of leader self-efficacy. Regarding the moderating role of gender, results in both samples showed that the effects of leader-self efficacy on motivation to lead were stronger for males. Socio-economic status was found to moderate the effects of leadership self-perceptions of negative ILTs on leadership self-efficacy in the UK sample and the effects of leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs on leadership self-efficacy in the Japanese sample.

Originality: This study fills the gap of empirical research focused on early adulthood influences on leadership development. In particular, this study has a three-fold contribution, by, firstly, developing a conceptual model that examines the role of young adults’ self- perceptions of leadership on their self-efficacy as leaders and motivation-to-lead; secondly examining contingencies of the proposed relationships; and thirdly testing the conceptual model in two countries.

Keywords: Young Adults, Implicit Leadership Theories, Leadership Self-efficacy, Motivation to Lead, Gender, Socio-Economic Status.

Article Type: Research Paper

1. Introduction

There has been growing interest in understanding what motivates individuals to actively pursue and engage in leadership (e.g., Bergner, Kanape & Rybnicek, 2018; Chan & Drasgow, 2001;

Epitropaki, 2018; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). The emergence and effectiveness of leaders is widely recognised as a complex relationship between individuals and context but what motivates young people to engage in leadership requires further investigation. Surprisingly, only a few studies have explored the developmental roots of leadership in terms of the role of adolescent experiences and socio-economic status (Oliver et al., 2011; Popper & Mayseless,

2007) as well as the motivation to lead of young adults (Glasford, 2008; Jenni, 2017). Scholars have acknowledged the importance of parental influences on children’s leadership development and have examined precursors such as attachment styles (e.g., Keller, 2003), authoritative parenting (e.g., Kudo et al., 2012) and parental standards of achievement (e.g.,

Avolio & Gibbons, 1988). There is, however, limited emphasis on other family context characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES), despite the great number of studies in developmental psychology that have shown the psychological impact of perceived socially ascribed roles and childhood background on shaping adult outcomes (Roberts, 2009). Thus, there is a need to explore further the factors influencing young adults’ motivation to lead.

The emphasis on young adults is a response to the call for additional research on the early precursors to adult leadership (e.g., Li et al., 2011; Murphy & Johnson, 2011; Riggio &

Mumford, 2011). We specifically focus on emerging adults (Arnet, 2004) aged 17-24.

Understanding motivation to lead as well as perceptions of leadership in young people is pertinent for several reasons. Firstly, it has been suggested that demographic changes are bringing about a “war on talent” (Michaels et al, 2001), meaning younger generations are expected to take on leadership roles earlier in their career life. Secondly, emerging adulthood has been identified as a critical juncture in human life development due to the degree of experimentation in roles, responsibilities and commitments they engage in. Further at this stage

psychological and physiological changes are taking place, which are still very sensitive to environmental conditions that may influence adaptive capabilities (Tanner & Arnett, 2009).

For example, the recent global experience of working remotely due to Covid-19 and the use of new technologies can contributed to a dynamic and challenging working environment, where especially young people may be able to adjust faster. Thirdly, reports suggest that barriers persist for women and individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds achieving leadership positions, many of these barriers emerging early in life (Barling & Weatherhead,

2016). Finally, we believe that examining the development of motivation to lead and its antecedents so early in a person’s career stage, i.e., during the liminal space between formal education and the world of work, is critical for developing timely developmental interventions.

In other words, as individuals begin to enter the world of work, the salience of their implicit leadership theories (ILTs), referring to their expectations and assumptions about leaders’ characteristics, skills and qualities that influence leadership self-perceptions (Lord, Foti, & De

Vader, 1984), could be a key factor in shaping their drive towards engaging in leadership development experiences (Dooley & Prause, 1997; Popper & Mayseless, 2007). Having the ambition to fill the gap of empirical research focused on early adulthood influences on leadership development, our study aims at examining the impact of both individual (such as gender and implicit leadership theories) and family context (i.e., socio-economic status) characteristics on leadership perceptions and motivation to lead. In particular, using a two- study cross-cultural research design and data from young adult samples from the UK and Japan, our paper contributes to knowledge by: First, developing a conceptual model that examines the role of young adults’ self-perceptions of leadership on their self-efficacy as leaders and subsequent motivation-to-lead in future work contexts; second, examining important contingencies of the proposed relationships including family environment characteristics such as socio-economic status and the individuals’ gender; and third, testing our conceptual model

in two countries with fundamental value differences, i.e., UK (high individualism) and Japan

(high collectivism), we provide a more nuanced perspective on the generalisability of the proposed relationships in different cultural contexts.

2. Theoretical development and hypotheses

2.1. Self-perceptions of leadership

Self-perceptions, such as positive self-concepts, have been consistently linked with leadership

(e.g., Bray et al., 2014; Darya, Hannes & Day, 2017; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Lord &

Maher, 1991; Resick et al., 2009). Some researchers have especially highlighted the role of individuals’ self-perceptions against leadership prototypes or implicit leadership theories

(ILTs) as an important element of leader categorization processes (Bray et al., 2014; Van

Quaquebeke, Van Knippenberg a&Brodbeck, 2011). Recently, Lord, Epitropaki, Foti and

Hansborough (2020) highlighted the role of self-categorization and ILTs-based self- perceptions for leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead and urged for more empirical research examining self-perceptions and individual-level outcomes. Whereas previous research adopted a follower-centric view and showed that followers’ self-perceptions of leadership influenced their judgement of actual leaders (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2011; Van Quaquebeke,

Graf & Eckloff, 2014; Türetgen, Unsal & Dural, 2017), we will opt for a leader-centric view and argue that leadership self-perceptions against ILTs are fundamental components of the early roots of leadership development.

ILTs are cognitive structures, mental schemas or prototypes specifying the traits and abilities that characterize leaders (e.g., Epitropaki et al., 2013; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984;

Offermann & Coats, 2018). They are subjective perceptions of reality, simplified heuristics that enable individuals to make sense of leadership manifestations. Prior research has generally identified two second-order factors of ILTs, i.e., positive/prototypical and

negative/antiprototypical (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann et al., 1994; Offermann

& Coats, 2018). Positive ILTs include dimensions such as sensitivity, dedication, dynamism and intelligence and negative ILTs mainly encompass tyranny and masculinity. ILTs are thought to develop early in life and have been shown to play an important role in leader follower relationships and employee outcomes (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Keller, 2003).

Their role in early leadership development has been previously highlighted and scholars have urged for an examination of the earliest “seeds” of leader development (Allen et al., 2014;

McCabe et al., 2020; Murphy & Johnson, 2011).

A key theory in the ILT field is leadership categorization (e.g., Lord & Alliger, 1985;

Lord et al., 1984) which states that people are categorized as leaders on the basis of the perceived match between their behavior or character and the attributes of a pre-existing leader category or prototype that the follower holds in memory (i.e., ILTs). Lord et al. (2020) further contended that people engage in a similar self-categorization process and utilize ILTs as a benchmark for their own behaviour as leaders, but there is surprisingly little research on this subject (e.g., Felfe et al., 2013; van Quaquebeque et al., 2011). Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis and Lord (2017) also argued that such categorization processes can critically influence leader identity salience. For example, individuals who perceive a match between their own ILTs and their enacted leadership behaviors will be more likely to see themselves as leaders and experience high levels of leadership efficacy and motivation to lead.

In an experimental study, Guillen et al. (2015) showed that both self-comparisons with concrete, influential leaders of the past or present (i.e. self-to-exemplar comparisons), as well as comparisons with more general representations of leadership (i.e. self-to prototype comparisons), related positively to motivation to lead. They further found leadership self- efficacy to mediate the effects of self-to-exemplar comparisons on motivation to lead, but it did not mediate the effects of self-to-prototype comparisons. In the present study, we argue that

young adults will engage in the categorization process described above and utilize ILTs as a benchmark for viewing themselves as possible future leaders. Thus, their self-perceptions will influence their own motivation to exercise leadership in their future career as well as their leadership efficacy. People who view themselves close to ILT-related attributes will be more inclined to see leadership as a possible role they can engage in, will seek out opportunities to gain experience and consequently pursue those opportunities that enable them to achieve leadership positions in their future career (Lord & Brown, 2004; Day & Dragoni, 2015).

2.2. Motivation to Lead

Motivation to lead (MTL) is defined as an individual difference construct that affects the intensity of effort at leading, and persistence as a leader that individuals may show (Chan &

Drasgow, 2001). MTL arguably has its roots in the conditions of growth during childhood

(Gottfried et al., 2011; Popper & Mayseless, 2007). The building blocks of leadership may be laid down through a process of internalising expectations from influential others, socialising, and learning experiences. Consequently, leadership trajectories are likely to be established before many even enter the workplace and set the tone for future leadership advancement.

Studies suggest that high motivation to lead is influential in predicting future career ambitions, leadership emergence, and potentially performance (Badura et al., 2020; Felfe et al., 2013; Lent

& Brown, 2006). Although early work has viewed MTL as a trait construct (Chan & Drasgow,

2001), recent research has argued for a state-perspective as MTL is dynamic and can be further developed with experience - such as vicarious experiences and self-to-other comparisons

(Guillen et al, 2014). This is also the view we adopt in our study.

Chan as Drasgow (2001) proposed that MTL consisted of three dimensions. The affective component is characterised by an individual’s desire to take charge and an enjoyment of leading. Social normative motivation to lead can be understood as a sense of responsibility

or duty to take on leadership. Third, the non-calculative aspect emphasises overlooking the personal risk or benefit of engaging in leadership. There are conceptual arguments to suggest the three components form a distinct unified construct, conversely arguments have been put forward that each factor can be delineated as a unique entity (Badura et al., 2020; Guillen et al,

2014; Felfe & Schyns, 2013) and this has been reflected in most studies focusing on just one aspect.

There is limited research on the role of culture for motivation to lead. There are some studies suggesting that MTL is linked to cultural variations. For example, Chan and Drasgow,

(2001) suggest that there is a social-normative aspect of motivation to lead, meaning that in some cultural environments, people are motivated by a sense of social duty to take action and lead. In a similar vein, Kark and Van Dijk, (2007) argued that individual values rooted in cultural values influence leader’s motivation. However, the role of culture for motivation to lead has not been explored in depth and there is significant need for more research on the impact of cultural characteristics on motivation to lead (Badura et al., 2020). Based on prior empirical evidence (e.g, Guillen et al., 2015; Felfe et al., 2013), theoretical propositions on the roots of motivation to lead (Kark & van Dijk, 2007) and leadership categorization theory (Lord et al.,

1984; Lord et al) we suggest that leadership self-perceptions (against implicit leadership theories) will be influential in shaping young adults’ motivation to lead and this relationship will be evident in different cultural contexts (Badura et al., 2020). Individuals are likely to benchmark themselves on the criteria with which they use to rate leaders, and those who view themselves as possessing leadership qualities will be more motivated to engage with leadership.

We thus expect a positive relationship between self-perceptions of leadership (based on both positive ILTs, such as sensitivity, dedication, dynamism and intelligence, and negative, such as tyranny and masculinity) with all three dimensions of MTL in young adults. Young adults, who perceive themselves as strongly aligned with their ILT traits, will be inherently

comfortable with leading and influencing others and are therefore highly inclined to enjoy the challenge of leading, thereby demonstrating a positive link with affective MTL. Furthermore, young adults with leadership self-perceptions, which are congruent with their leadership prototypes, are also likely to consider themselves responsible, committed and dutiful towards others, as ideal leaders. Hence, arguably, they will also manifest higher levels of social normative MTL. In the same vein, young adults strongly aligning themselves with their ILTs will have a positive view of leadership opportunities and thereby less deterred by low personal benefits or high risks of the role. Such individuals are therefore, likely to manifest high levels of non-calculative MTL.

H1: Leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and negative ILTs) of young

adults will be positively related to their affective, socio-normative and non-calculative

motivation to lead.

2.3. Leadership Self Efficacy

Chan and Drasgow (2002) suggested that distal antecedents would be mediated through proximal antecedents of motivation to lead such as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy represents people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance (e.g.,

Bandura, 1994). Leadership self-efficacy (LSE) in particular refers to one’s perceptions regarding his or her ability to lead others (Dwyer, 2019; Hannah et al., 2008; Murphy, 1992).

High LSE has been reported to result in more positive leadership ratings by instructors, peers and observers (Chemers et al, 2000; Courtright et al., 2014; Seibert et al., 2017), more change leadership (Mesterova et al., 2015; Palis & Green, 2002) and better group performance (Hoyt et al., 2003; Kane et al, 2002; Villanueva and Sánchez, 2007). Furthermore, in relation to gender, Hoyt (2005) reported that women with a high LSE demonstrated a heightened association with the leadership domain and a buffer in stressful situations.

Prior research has supported the mediating role of leadership self-efficacy in the relationship between distal antecedents such as personality and MTL (e.g., Chan & Drasgow;

Chen, 2016; Ng, Ang & Chan, 2008) as well as the romance of leadership and motivation to lead (Felfe et al., 2013). Young adults with high LSE are likely to display high confidence in their leadership abilities, by virtue of positive self-concepts (Darya, Hannes & Day, 2017;

Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Therefore, arguably these young adults with high LSE will actively seek out and enjoy leadership roles as defined by affected MTL. Their strong faith in their leadership skills may arguably enhance their perception of leadership as a duty, in line with socio-normative MTL; as well as perceive leadership opportunities as positive, notwithstanding the risks, as in, non-calculative MTL. Therefore, our study extends prior research by examining leadership self-efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between leadership self-perceptions and MTL. We propose that young adults who perceive themselves as possessing high levels of leadership traits associated with their implicit leadership theories will experience higher leadership self-efficacy and subsequently report higher levels of motivation to lead.

H2: Leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and negative ILTs) of young

adults will be positively related to their leader self-efficacy.

H3: Leadership self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between self-perceptions of

leadership (against both positive and negative ILTs) of young adults and their affective,

socio-normative and non-calculative motivation to lead.

2.4. The moderating role of Gender and Socio-Economic Status (SES)

We further offer a more fine-grained perspective to the above hypothesized relationships between leadership self-perceptions, leadership self-efficacy and MTL by examining both individual and environmental contingencies. We specifically examine how gender and socio- economic status (SES) play a role in young adults’ self-image as leaders, their beliefs in their future ability to lead and their motivation to pursue leadership in their future career. The focus on gender is pertinent because while considerable changes have taken place over the last 30 years regarding women in leadership roles, research suggests that implicit gender bias and the

“glass ceiling” is still very much in place (Braddy et al., 2020; Greenhalgh & Maxwell, 2019;

Hoyt & Simon, 2016; Sczesny, 2003) and minority groups including women remain underrepresented in leadership positions (Hoyt & Simon, 2016, Simon & Hoyt, 2012).

Similarly researchers have long argued and presented robust empirical data to suggest that socio-economic status can have deleterious effects on careers and life prospects (Baldry, 2016;

Polidano et al, 2013). In both instances we propose that these two contingencies can influence the relationship between young adults’ images of the self in relation to the internalized leadership prototypes (ILTs) and consequently impact their leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead.

2.5. Gender

Gender in particular has attracted considerable attention in relation to leadership development

(e.g. Athanasopoulou et al., 2018; Selzer et al., 2017; Sugiama et al., 2016). Ely, Ibarra and,

Kolb (2011) for example outline the challenges of second generation forms of gender bias, that are often invisible, engrained and culturally shaped on internalised models of what makes a leader. Coder and Spiller (2013) argued that leadership education is delivering confusing messages about what leadership is, in relation to gender. One particular criticism is gender role stereotyping and the attribution of communal behaviours to women and agentic behaviours to

men (Greenhalgh & Maxwell, 2019; Hoyt & Burnette, 2013; Hoyt, 2005; Eagly & Karau,

2002). There is considerable evidence to suggest that gender stereotyped biases towards career development start early in childhood with consequences for perceptions of opportunities in the world of work. Hoyt and colleagues (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010; Hoyt & Simon, 2011) have presented evidence to suggest that gender leader stereotyping is harmful to women’s self- perceptions, wellbeing, leadership aspirations and, perceived task performance. Sczesny

(2003) suggested that women may have fewer early opportunities to develop leadership experiences and thus, internalise traditional gender role perceptions. Media images of traditional gender roles are still pervasive with men ascribed to high status positions while women are more commonly ascribed to home-maker, low status roles although recent evidence is suggesting that this is beginning to change (Yoder et al, 2008). The degree to which times are actually changing makes the exploration of the role of gender for young adults’ internalised perceptions of leadership and their future motivations towards positions of leadership pertinent.

Based on these findings and arguments, we contend that female young adults will demonstrate lower confidence and self-belief in their ability to be effective leaders compared to their male counterparts; based on internalised stereotypical gender-role perceptions (Hoyt & Blascovich,

2010; Hoyt & Simon, 2011, Sczesny, 2003). Consequently, we expect gender to interact with leadership self-perceptions on leader-self efficacy and also with leadership self-efficacy on motivation to lead.

H4: Gender will moderate the relationship between leadership self-perceptions

(against both positive and negative ILTs) and leader self-efficacy. The effect of

leadership self-perceptions on leadership self-efficacy will be stronger for male than

female young adults.

H5: Gender will moderate the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and

affective, socio-normative and non-calculative motivation to lead. The effect of

leadership self-efficacy on motivation to lead will be stronger for male than for female

young adults.

2.6. Socio-Economic Status (SES)

The role of socio-economic status has been a dominant theme in the fields of education, counselling, and careers for many decades where findings have somewhat consistently reported significant results (Baldry, 2016; Howard, 2011; Liu et al, 2004). Research on the role of SES in relation to leadership is scant. SES has been defined by material wealth, occupation, and participation in educational and social institutions (Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Oakes & Rossi,

2003), however the definition is contested and often conflated with associated terms such as social class and social status (Liu et al, 2004; Eshelman & Rottinghaus, 2014). Evidence suggests that those coming from low SES backgrounds are more likely to drop out of school early (Sirin, 2005), have difficulty finding employment and are more likely to be in low paid jobs (Baldry, 2016; Leana et al., 2012; Rumberger & Lamb, 2003). Polidano et al. (2013) reported two significant characteristics influencing low SES student behaviours: (a) student and parent educational aspirations and (b) lower academic performance. They further argued that family born aspirations may result in inter-generational effects, i.e. the parents low aspirations transfer on to the children. Kearney and Levine (2016) report that low SES is related to low perceived returns from human capital investments thus, perpetuating low social mobility. Consequently, these aspirational frames may influence individuals’ perception of leadership. A perception of low status may discourage individuals from striving for recognisable leadership roles or view leadership as the possession of “others”.

Previous studies examining the subjective components of SES indicate stigma associated with lower perceived status that may cause internal conflicts deleterious to aspirations or performance (Liu et al, 2004). Some studies have suggested class ties may form

psychological impediments to engaging in activities beyond their “station” which may take the form of resistance (Willis, 1977) or stigma (Grella, 1990). Furthermore, Browman et al. (2019) highlights that perceived inequalities diminish low-SES young people’s psychological conviction in socio-economic opportunities for upward mobility. Therefore, it may be reasoned, that even if young people from lower SES backgrounds had favourable self- perceptions, their lack of faith in socio-economic opportunities and societal acceptance will result in an underestimation of their ability to reach leadership positions and drive to lead others; unlike that of young people from high-SES backgrounds. Consequently, we propose that perceived socio-economic status will be an important moderator in the relation of leadership self-perceptions and leadership self-efficacy but also in the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead.

H6: Perceived socio-economic status (SES) will moderate the relationship between

leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and negative ILTs) and leadership

self-efficacy. The effect of leadership self-perceptions on leadership self-efficacy will

be stronger for those young adults of high versus low SES.

H7: Perceived socio-economic status (SES) will moderate the relationship between

leadership self-efficacy and affective, socio-normative and non-calculative motivation

to lead. The effect of leadership self-efficacy on motivation to lead will be stronger for

those of high SES.

2.7. Moderated Mediation

Considered together, the aforementioned mediating and moderating effects imply a moderated- mediation model (e.g., Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007).

Therefore, we suggest that the mediated effects of leadership self-efficacy in the relationship between leadership self-perceptions and motivation to lead depend upon the levels of perceived

SES and gender. Consequently, we expect leadership self-efficacy to be a more powerful mechanism explaining the effects of leadership perceptions on motivation to lead for male young adults and for those of high socio-economic status.

H8: The indirect effect of leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and

negative ILTs) to motivation to lead via leadership self-efficacy will be moderated by

gender. Specifically, the effect will be stronger for male young adults.

H9: The indirect effect of leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and

negative ILTs) to motivation to lead via leadership self-efficacy will be moderated by

SES. Specifically, the effect will be stronger for young adults of high SES.

Our overall hypothesized model can be seen in Figure 1.

Insert Figure 1 about here

2.8. Overview of the Research

The value of multi-study research packages has been highlighted in prior research (e.g.,

Hochwarter, Ferris & Hanes, 2011). The present investigation consists of a two-study research design that tests the effects of leadership self-perceptions on motivation-to-lead via leadership self-efficacy, and the moderating role of both gender and SES in an individualistic (UK) and a collectivistic (Japan) cultural context. In this study, we consider culture as a critical aspect and by adopting a cross-cultural mode, we focus on how individuals perceive themselves against leadership prototypes, how this may influence their belief in their ability to be a leader and in turn how that will motivate them to take on a leadership roles in the future career. Uniquely, we draw on both gender and socio-economic status as potential influencing variables in the development of young adults’ leader selves and consequently their motivations to lead. In part,

this is based on concerns surrounding social mobility in the UK, USA and elsewhere (Blanden,

Gregg &, Macmillan, 2013), but more fundamentally on the reported psychological impact of perceived socially ascribed roles and childhood background have on shaping adult outcomes

(Roberts, 2009). Therefore, in order to test our hypotheses above, we have conducted two studies in UK and Japan. Both studies were based on cross-sectional data collected from emerging adults (17-20 years old).

3. Method

3.1. Sample 1: UK

The UK sample (n=267) consisted of students in their final year of high school (n = 145) and students in their first semester of University (n = 122). 310 questionnaires were submitted of which 43 were discarded for either incomplete answers or failure to correctly answer control questions designed to test for automatic response. The average age was 18 and ranged between

17-20. To determine if there were any meaningful differences between High School &

University students on dimensions of motivation to lead and leadership self-efficacy a one- factor MANOVA with follow up Cohen’s-d’s were calculated. Results indicated no significant

[Wilks’ λ = 1.00, F(1,265) = .733, p>.01, partial η2 <.001], nor meaningful [LSE (d = 0.1),

Socio-normative MTL (d = .05), Non-calculative MTL (d = .05), Affective MTL (d = .03)] differences. Thus the sample was not split by level for subsequent analyses. Of the participants,

51% were female. Means, SDs and correlations among key variables in the UK sample can be seen in Table 1 (below the diagonal).

< Insert Table 1 about here>

3.2. Sample 2: Japan

The Japanese sample consisted of 127 individuals, 41% were in their final year of high school.

53% of the respondents were female. Translation and back-translation processes were utilised to ensure that Japanese version of the questionnaire captured the same constructs as the English

version (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). The age range was limited to 18-20. One factor

MANOVA was conducted to examine if there were any meaningful differences between High

School & University students groups. Results indicated no significant [Wilks’ λ = 1.00,

F(4,120) = 2.904, p>.01, partial η2 <.001], nor meaningful [LSE (d = 0.09), Socio-normative

MTL (d = .1), Non-calculative MTL (d = .05), Affective MTL (d = .04)] differences. Means,

SDs and correlations among key variables in the Japanese sample can be seen in Table 1 (above the diagonal).

3.3. Measures (both samples)

Each variable was assessed using previously validated measurement items with, in some cases, minor modifications to assess the variables of study.

Leadership self-perceptions. Self-views of leadership against positive and negative prototypes were measured using Epitropaki and Martin’s (2004) 21-item ILTs scale.

Participants were asked to rate on a 9-point scale how characteristic a set of traits were of themselves. The original ILTs scale comprises six dimensions of implicit leadership theory, namely: Sensitivity (e.g., understanding), Intelligence (e.g., intelligent), Dedication (e.g., hard- working), Dynamism (e.g., energetic), Tyranny (e.g., domineering), and Masculinity. Due to the referent- change in our study (rating self traits vs. other traits in the original scale) respondents to the Masculinity items did not endorse the full 10 point scale, and answered in line with their own gender, resulting in binary scores. It was therefore decided to remove these two items and exclude the Maculinity dimension from our analyses. The Cronbach alphas for the UK sample were .80 for positive ILTs and .87 for negative ILTs whereas in the Japanese sample were .89 and .83, respectively.

Leadership Self Efficacy was assessed using eight items developed by Murphy (2001).

Sample items include, “I know a lot more than most students about what it takes to be a good

leader,” and “I am confident of my ability to influence a group I lead.” The Cronbach alpha was .86 in the UK sample .80 in the Japanese sample.

Motivation to Lead. To measure Motivation to Lead we utilised Chan and Drasgow’s (2001)

MTL scale. The scale consists of 27 items, nine for each factor. Example items include “I usually want to be the leader in the groups that I work in”. The Cronbach alpha was .82 (UK) and .78 (Japan).

Socio-economic Status. SES was measured using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective

Social Status (Goodman et al, 2001). Participants were asked to judge their SES using a diagram of a ten-rung ladder. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off, those who have the most money, most education, and best jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off, those who have the least money, least education, and worst jobs or no job".

The ordinal nature of the instrument locates individuals discretely along the 10 point continuum allowing for considerable differentiation. In our sample the respondents ranged from 1 – 10 endorsing the full scale range. The scale can comprise of two items, one referencing a more global anchor and a second referencing a more local anchor (e.g. school or community). In this study we used a single, locally anchored item referencing community. More proximal anchors are suggested to provide a more immediate and salient index of status (Cundiff et al, 2013).

Such approaches measure perceived social standing rather than the accuracy of economic position which can be problematic (Diemer et al, 2012). Previous studies have suggested that such subjective approaches to measuring socio-economic status represents a cognitive average of various markers of SES and provide a more nuanced and relative understanding of perceived social position (Singh-Manoux et al, 2005; Goodman et al 2001).

4. Results

4.1. Hypotheses Testing

To explore the relationship between our variables we used conditional process modelling to test moderated mediation as outlined by Hayes (2013) using the PROCESS macro, model 58.

Specifically we tested to see whether gender and socio-economic status moderated the relationships among leadership self-perceptions (positive and negative ILTs), leadership self- efficacy (mediator) and motivation to lead (affective, socio-normative, & non-calculative). We ran two models, in the first, Positive ILTs were the independent variable, and in the second negative ILTs were inserted as the independent variable, the analyses were then replicated for the Japanese sample. The regression results of PROCESS are shown in Tables 2-6.

< Insert Tables 2-6 about here>

4.1.1. UK sample

Consistent with the predictions of H1, self-perceptions of positive ILTs were significantly and positively related to socio-normative motivation to lead (B= .53, p<.05) but not affective or non-calculative motivation to lead. Leadership self-perceptions of negative ILTs (tyranny) were negatively related to non-calculative motivation to lead (B=-.46, p<.01) but non significant effects were found for affective and socio-normative motivation to lead. Thus results partially support H1 in the UK sample. Furthermore, self-perceptions of both Positive

ILTs (B= 1.02, p<.001) and negative ILTs were positively related to leadership self-efficacy

(B= .33, p<.001), thus providing full support for H2 in the UK sample.

With regards to H3, self-perceptions of positive ILTs had an indirect effect via leadership self-efficacy on affective (b= 1.05, 95% bias-corrected CI [.87, 1.25]), non- calculative (b= .34, 95% bias-corrected CI [.08, .60]) and socio-normative motivation to lead

(b= .51, 95% bias-corrected CI [.28, .75]). Self-perceptions of negative ILTs also had an indirect effect via leadership self-efficacy on affective (b= .38, 95% bias-corrected CI

[.31, .45]), non-calculative (b= .26, 95% bias-corrected CI [.18, .35]) and socio-normative motivation to lead (b= .25, 95% bias-corrected CI [.17, .33]). Thus, results support H3.

Regarding H4 and H5, we found no significant interaction effects of gender and leadership self-perceptions on leadership self-efficacy but gender was found to moderate the relationship between leader-self efficacy and affective MTL (b = .20, p = < .05) as well as socio-normative MTL (b = .28, p = <.05). Thus, H4 was not supported but H5 was partially supported in the UK sample. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead. The form of the interaction suggests that the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and both affective and socio-normative MTL is stronger for male young adults in the UK sample. No significant moderated-mediation results were obtained with regards to gender and thus H8 was not supported.

< Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here>

With regards to H6 and H7, socio-economic status (SES) was found to moderate the relationship between leadership self-perceptions of negative ILTs and LSE (b=.03, p<.01) but no significant effects was found in the case of leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs.

Furthermore, no significant interaction effects were found between SES and LSE on motivation to lead. Results showed that in conditions of high SES, self-perceptions of negative ILTs had an indirect effect via leadership self-efficacy on affective (b= .42, 95% bias-corrected CI

[.31, .54]), non-calculative (b= .32, 95% bias-corrected CI [.20, .45]) and socio-normative motivation to lead (b= .27, 95% bias-corrected CI [.17, .39]). Thus, H6 and H9 were partially supported whereas H7 was not supported in the UK sample. Figure 3 illustrates the interaction effect of SES and leadership self-perceptions of negative ILTs on leader-self efficacy.

< Insert Figure 4 about here>

4.1.2. Japanese sample

Leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs were significant predictors of both socio- normative MTL (B= .24, p<.05) and non-calculative MTL (.33, p<.05). No significant effects

were found on affective MTL. Self-perceptions of negative ILTs were not significantly related with affective or non-calculative MTL but they were significant for socio-normative MTL

(b= .20, p<.05). These results partially support Hypothesis 1 in the Japanese sample. Once again, self-perceptions of both positive ILTs (b= .40, p<.01) and negative ILTs (b= .40, p<.001) were positively related to leader self-efficacy, thus providing full support for H2 in the Japanese sample.

With regards to H3, self-perceptions of positive ILTs had an indirect effect via leadership self-efficacy on affective (b= .35, 95% bias-corrected CI [.19, .51]), non-calculative

(b= -.19, 95% bias-corrected CI [-.38, -.02]) but not socio-normative motivation to lead (b= .01,

95% bias-corrected CI [-.14, .17], ns). Self-perceptions of negative ILTs also had an indirect effect via leadership self-efficacy on affective (b= .42, 95% bias-corrected CI [.24, .60]) but not non-calculative (b= -.003, 95% bias-corrected CI [.22, .21], ns) and socio-normative motivation to lead (b= .001, 95% bias-corrected CI [-.22, .21], ns). Thus, results partially support H3 in the Japanese sample.

Regarding the moderating role of gender, no support was found for H4 and H5 in the

Japanese sample. Socio-economic status had a small and negative moderating effect between leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs and Leadership self-efficacy (b = -.03, p = <.05) but no significant interaction effects of SES and self-efficacy on motivation to lead were found.

Thus H6 was partially supported whereas H7 was not. Figure 4 illustrates the moderating effect of SES on the relationship between leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs and leadership self-efficacy in the Japanese sample. No support for H8 and H9, i.e., moderated-mediation was found in the Japanese sample.

< Insert Figure 5 about here>

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The current study adds to the growing literature on the social-cognitive foundations of leadership development, leadership self-concepts and motivation-to-lead (e.g, Day & Dragoni,

2015; Epitropaki et al., 2017) and shows the importance of the formative years of early adulthood for viewing oneself as a leader and for being willing to step up to leadership positions in future careers. Our study attempted to cast light on the early seeds of leadership development in two different cultural contexts, an individualist (UK) and a collectivistic one (Japan)

(Hofstede, 1980). In both contexts, we found support for the role of young adults’ self- perceptions of leadership for their motivation to pursue leadership positions in the future and for their confidence as leaders. Our study answers the call for more empirical research on self- categorization processes (Lord et al., 2020) by examining – for the first time – the role of ILTs- based self-perceptions on leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead. Our results provide support to self-categorization processes in young adulthood, showing that in both cultural contexts the participants used Implicit Leadership Theories as a benchmark for their self-views as leaders with important implications for the leader efficacy and motivation to lead.

We specifically found significant positive effects of leadership self-perceptions (against both positive and negative ILTs) on leadership self-efficacy in both UK and Japan. The more young adults viewed themselves as being close to leadership prototypes, the more confident they were in their ability to exercise leadership in the future. Results also indicated that leadership self-perceptions were important for participants’ motivation to lead. We specifically found positive ILTs to significantly influence socio-normative motivation to lead whereas negative ILTs affected non-calculative motivation to lead in the UK sample. Benchmarking oneself against traits such as sensitive, dedicated, dynamic, intelligent etc., increased UK participants’ sense of duty to take on leadership, whereas benchmarking against negative traits such as domineering, pushy etc. made more salient the personal risks of engaging in leadership.

In Japan, positive ILTs were significant predictors of both socio-normative and non-calculative

motivation to lead whereas negative ILTs influenced only socio-normative motivation to lead.

In the case of Japanese young adults, benchmarking oneself against both positive and negative

ILTs increased their sense of responsibility to exercise leadership and self-views of positive

ILTs further decreased the perception of risks associated with leadership.

We further examined the moderating role of gender and SES in both cultural contexts as well as the mediating role of leadership self-efficacy in the relation between leadership self- perceptions and motivation to lead. We did not find support for the moderating role of gender in the relation between leadership self-perceptions and leadership self-efficacy in neither UK nor Japan but we found support for its role in the relation between leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead but only in the UK. High levels of leadership self-efficacy were associated with higher levels of both socio-normative and affective motivation to lead for male but not female young adults. These results are consistent with prior work on gender and motivation to lead. There are several challenges and barriers in the process of women integrating the identity of a leader into the core self and translating a belief in being able to lead into motivations to lead (Bandura, 1997; Ely et al., 2011).

A somewhat differential pattern of effects emerged with regards to socio-economic status in the two countries. SES was found to moderate the effects of leadership self- perceptions of negative ILTs on leadership self-efficacy in the UK sample and the effects of leadership self-perceptions of positive ILTs on leadership self-efficacy in the Japanese sample.

Self-perceptions of negative ILTs (Tyranny) increased leader-self efficacy of UK participants of high SES whereas high self-perceptions of positive ILTs (Sensitivity, Dedication,

Dynamism and Intelligence) increase leader-self efficacy of Japanese participants of low SES.

This finding is consistent with prior research on ILTs examining differences between US and

Asian participants. Sy et al. (2010) examined leadership perceptions as a function of race and found that an Asian-American target activated a communal/competent-leadership prototype

whereas a Caucasian-American target activated an agentic-leadership prototype. For Asian-

American participants, positive ILTs dimensions such as Dedication and Intelligence mattered more, whereas negative/antiprototypical dimensions (Tyranny, Masculinity) and the agentic dimension of Dynamism mattered for Caucasian-Americans. In addition to individualistic versus collective cultural aspects as those indicated by Sy et al’s (2010) research, our study further highlighted the role of class and SES. In an individualistic culture such as the UK, young adults of high SES and privileged upbringing are more influenced by agentic leadership traits and their confidence as future leaders significantly increases the closer they match a more tyrannical prototype (i.e., traits such as domineering, selfish, pushy etc.). In a collectivistic culture like Japan, more communal/competence related leadership traits are valued and thus self-perceptions against such traits (e.g., being sensitive, understanding, helpful, dedicated, intelligent etc.) can play a compensatory role for a less privileged family background and a low

SES. Thus, benchmarking oneself against these traits can accentuate low SES young adults’ leadership self-efficacy and confidence.

Our findings offer several practical implications for young adult leadership development and career advancement. Better understanding of the mental models that young people hold with regard to leadership, i.e., their ILTs, is important for designing effective educational and career counselling interventions to increase their self-efficacy in their ability to exercise leadership in their future career. Special attention needs to be paid to female and low SES young adults to help them overcome possible leadership reluctance and experience increased motivation to lead via a series of interventions such as coaching, leadership training, role modelling, feedback and vicarious learning among others (Epitropaki, 2018).

5.2. Limitations & future research

Despite the interesting findings, there are several limitations of our research. First, we were unable to establish causality given the cross-sectional nature of our data. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that reciprocal effects exist among some of the key variables of our study such as leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead. Notwithstanding this possibility, our hypothesised relationships are underscored by strong theoretical grounding as well as prior empirical evidence, thereby offering confidence as to their validity. Another limitation stems from the fact that our date were collected from self-reports and thus common method variance may be an issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, prevalence of CMV would result to significant relationships between all self-reported variables which was not the case in our study

(see Table 1) and would attenuate rather than inflate interaction effects as those examined in our research (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc & Babin, 2016; Siemsen, Roth & Oliveira,

2010). Furthermore, the relatively small size of our Japanese sample did not allow us to perform more sophisticated analyses of measurement invariance between the two country samples and this is another limitation that needs to be mentioned.

Fourthly, the cross sectional nature of this study does not enable us to understand how leadership self-perceptions, efficacy and MTL in youth translate into leadership development/identity trajectories going forward. From a developmental point of view, exploring leadership identity development trajectories over time and across life transition points (e.g. from education to work) may provide useful insights for tailoring leadership development programmes, particularly to those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, where social mobility remains a concern. Additional to this, further studies of pre-employment leadership perceptions may provide valuable insights into the emergence of leadership styles over time. Furthermore, measuring socio-economic status is fraught with challenges. This study has taken brevity over complexity but we would suggest future studies draw on a range of measures to capture the richness of how individuals may conceptualise/perceive themselves

in relation to others in society. Future research can expand the cultural lens and collect data in multiple countries to offer more nuanced insights of the cross-cultural complexities of the phenomena of interest. Despite the cultural value differences between UK and Japan

(individualistic vs. collectivistic), OECD statistics show high similarities in terms of equality of income distribution and poverty rates in the two countries (OECD, 2016). Thus, future studies focusing on the role of SES could collect data in countries with substantial income inequality differences (e.g., Denmark versus USA). Furthermore, power distance could be an important cultural value for future research to examine as it can influence leadership perceptions (e.g., Schermerhorn & Bond, 1997). Despite the clear differences between UK and

Japan on the individualism/collectivism dimension, the differences between the two countries on power distance are small as Japan is considered to be a borderline hierarchical society

(Hofstede, 1980). Future studies can collect data in countries of high power distance (such as

China and Philippines) to understand how young adults view themselves as leaders in more hierarchical cultural contexts.

In conclusion, this study has examined the role of leadership self-perceptions for leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead in early adulthood and further explored the role of gender and SES. Considering broader studies in the field of careers, aspirations, and child development indicate parental background and more broadly socialisation may be influential in shaping personal development trajectories the lack of studies in this area is surprising and the gap we are trying to fill is important. We have further endeavoured to consider the role of culture by exploring our model in two culturally distinct environments. Our study has casted some light on the ‘early seeds’ of leadership and we hope that future studies will continue to examine the early cognitive and motivational foundations of the exercise of leadership in future careers and organisational contexts.

References

Allen, M. T., Bynum, B. H., Oliver, J. T., Russell, T. L., Young, M. C. & Babin, N. E. (2014).

Predicting Leadership Performance and Potential in the U.S. Army Officer Candidate

School (OCS), Military Psychology, 26 (4), 310-326. DOI: 10.1037/ mil0000056

Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the

Twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Athanasopoulou, A., Moss‐Cowan, A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2018). Claiming the corner

office: Female CEO careers and implications for leadership development. Human

Resource Management, 57(2), 617-639.

Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span

approach. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass management

series. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp.

276-308). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Galvin, B. M., Owens, B. P. & Joseph, D. L. (2020). Motivation to

lead: A meta-analysis and distal-proximal model of motivation and leadership. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 105 (4), 331 – 354.

Baldry, K. (2016). Graduate unemployment in South Africa: social inequality reproduced.

Journal of Education and Work, 29 (7), 788-812.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bergner, S., Kanape, A., & Rybnicek, R. (2019). Taking an interest in taking the lead: The

influence of vocational interests, leadership experience and success on the motivation

to lead. Applied Psychology, 68(1), 202-219.

Bernardi, F., & Ballarino, G. (2016). The intergenerational transmission of inequality and

education in fourteen countries: a comparison. In Bernardi, F. & G. Ballarino (Eds),

Education, Occupation and Social Origin (pp. 255–282). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward

Elgar Publishing Limited.

Blanden, J., Gregg, P. & Macmillan, L. (2013). Intergenerational persistence in income and

social class: the effect of within‐group inequality. Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176(2), 541-563.

Braddy, P. W., Sturm, R., Atwater, L., Taylor, S. N. & McKee, R. A. (2020). Gender bias still

plagues the workplace: Looking at derailment risk and performance with self-other

ratings. Group and Organization Management, 45(3), 315 – 350.

Bray, B., Foti, R. J., Thompson, N. J., & Wills, S. F. (2014). Disentangling the effects of self

leader perceptions and ideal leader prototypes on leader judgments using loglinear

modeling with latent variables. Human Performance, 27, 393–415.

Brislin, R.W., Lonner, W.J., & Thorndike, R.M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New

York: Wiley.

Browman, A. S., Destin, M., Kearney, M. S. & Levine, P. B. (2019). How economic inequality

shapes mobility expectations and behaviour in disadvantaged youth. Nature Human

Behaviour, 3, 214 – 220.

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic

concepts, applications, and programming. London: Sage.

Chan, K-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership:

Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498.

Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership

effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 267−277.

Chen, L. (2016). Linking leader personality traits to motivation to lead: A self-concept

approach. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44 (11), 1913 –

1925.

Coder, L., & Spiller, M. (2013). Leadership education and gender roles: Think manager, think

"?". Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 21-5.

Courtright, S.H., Colbert, A.E. and Choi, D. (2014), “Fired up or burned out? How

developmental challenge differentially impacts leader behavior”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 99 (4), 681-696.

Darya, M., Hannes, G., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader: Examining leader identity

development over time. Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 605 – 620.

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based

on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133-156.

Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., López, I., & Reimers, F. (2001) Best Practices

in Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Class in Psychological Research. Analyses of

Social Issues and Public Policy, 13 (1), 77-113.

Dooley, D., & Prause, J. (1997). Effect of students' self‐esteem on later employment status:

Interactions of self‐esteem with gender and race. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 46(2), 175-198.

Dwyer, L. P. (2019). Leadership self efficacy: review and leader development implications.

Journal of Management Development, 38 (8), 637 – 650.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A

general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,

12(1), 1-22.

Ely, R.J., Ibarra, H. and Kolb, D.M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design

for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning and

Education, 10(3), 474-493.

Epitropaki, O. (2018). The self-selection bias in leadership: Understanding reluctant leaders.

In Riggio, R. (Ed.). What’s Wrong with Leadership? Improving Leadership Research

and Practice (pp. 89-104). NY: Routledge.

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C. & Lord, R.G. (2017). Leadership and followership

identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104-129.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor

structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89(2), 293–310.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of

implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676.

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership

and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing

approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership

Quarterly, 24(6), 858-881.

Eshelman, A. J., & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2015). Viewing adolescents ‘career futures through the

lenses of socioeconomic status and social class. The Career Development Quarterly,

63(4), 323-332.

Ewijk, R., & P. Sleegers. (2010). The Effect of Peer Socioeconomic Status on Student

Achievement: A Meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 134–150.

Felfe, J., Schyns, B., Sun, J., Aycan, Z. and Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of

paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of

International Business Studies, 44(9), 962-969.

Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods

variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192-

3198.

Glasford, D. E. (2008). Predicting voting behavior of young adults: The importance of

information, motivation, and behavioral skills. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 38(11), 2648-2672.

Goodman, E., Adler, N.E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A.L., Huang, B. and Colditz, G.A., (2001).

Adolescents’ Perceptions of Social Status: Development and Evaluation of a New

Indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31-e31.

Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Reichard, R. J., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H. & Riggio, R.E.

(2011). Motivational roots of leadership: A longitudinal study from childhood through

adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 510 – 519.

Greenhalgh, A. M. & Maxwell, C. I. (2019). The mirror and the window: Making implicit

perceptions of leadership explicit. Journal of Management Education, 43 (6), 598 –

629.

Grella, C.E. (1990). Irreconcilable Differences: Women Defining Class after Divorce and

Downward Mobility, Gender and Society, 4(1), 41-55.

Granfield, R. (1991). Making it by faking it: Working-class students in an elite academic

environment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(3), 331-351.

Gugushvili, A., Bukodi, E. and Goldthorpe, J.H. (2017). The direct effect of social origins on

social mobility chances:‘Glass floors’ and ‘glass ceilings’ in Britain. European

Sociological Review, 33(2), 305-316.

Guillén, L., Mayo, M., & Korotov, K. (2015). Is leadership a part of me? A leader identity

approach to understanding the motivation to lead. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5),

802-820.

Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., & Harms, P.D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and

future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.

New York: Guilford Press.

Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., & Hanes, T.J. (2011). Multi-study packages in organizational

science research. In D.J. Ketchen Jr. & D.D. Bergh (Eds.), Building methodological

bridges - Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 163-199). Bingley,

UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Hoffman, D. M. (2000). Individualism and individuality in American and Japanese early

education: A review and critique. American Journal of Education, 108, 300-317.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in world-related

values. London: Sage.

Howard, K.A., Carlstrom, A.H., Katz, A.D., Chew, A.Y., Ray, G.C., Laine, L. and Caulum,

D., (2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, socio-economic

status, and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 98-109.

Hoyt, C. L., Murphy, S. E., Halverson, S. K. & Watson, C. B. (2003). Group leadership:

Efficacy and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice. 7 (4),

259 – 274.

Hoyt, C. (2005). The role of leadership efficacy and stereotype activation in women's

identification with leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4),

2-14.

Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2010). The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype

activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership

domain. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 89–103.

Hoyt, C. L. & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit

theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

39 (10), 1306 – 1319.

Hoyt, C. L. & Simon, S. (2016). The role of social dominance orientation and patriotism in the

evaluation of racial minority and female leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

46, 518 – 528.

Hoyt, C. L., & Simon, S. (2011). Female leaders: Injurious or inspiring role models for women?

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 143–157.

Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M. & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis

be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351 – 362.

Jenni, C. (2017). Motivation to Lead: A contingent approach to female leadership. Journal of

Business Diversity, 17(2).

Kane, T.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Tremble Jr, T.R. & Masuda, A.D. (2002). An examination of the

leader’s regulation of groups. Small Group Research, 33(1), 65-120.

Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to Lead, Motivation to Follow: The Role of the

Self-Regulatory Focus in Leadership Processes. Academy of Management Review,

32(2), 500-528.

Kearney, M.S. & Levine, P.B. (2016). Income inequality, social mobility, and the decision to

drop out of high school (No. w20195). National Bureau of Economic Research

Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment

perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141–160.

Kraus, M.W. & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach.

Psychological science, 20(1), 99-106.

Kudo, F. T., Longhofer, J.L. & Floersch, J.E. (2012). On the origins of early leadership: The

role of authoritative parenting practices and mastery orientation. Leadership, 8(4), 345

– 375.

Liu, W.M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K. & Pickett Jr, T. (2004). A new framework to

understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview model and modern

classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(2), 95-122.

Lord, R. and Alliger, G. (1985). A Comparison of four information processing models of

leadership and social perceptions. Human Relations, 38(1), 47-65.

Lord, R.G., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. & Keller Hansbrough, T. (2020). Implicit Leadership and

Followership Theories and Dynamic Processing of Leadership Information. Annual

Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 49–74.

Lord, R., Foti, R. & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal

structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378.

Lord, R.G. & Brown, D.J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah,

NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking

perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Leana, C.R., Mittal, V., & Stiehl, E. (2012), Organizational behavior and the working poor.

Organization Science, 23(3), 888–906.

Lent, R.W. & Brown, S.D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive

constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment,

14(1), 12-35.

Li, Wen-Dong., Arvey, R., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self -

esteem and family socio-economic status on leadership role occupancy and leader

advancement: The moderating role of gender. Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 520-534.

Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to

parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural equation Modeling,

9(2), 151-173.

McCabe, K. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020). Who shines most among the brightest?

A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 119 (2), 390 – 416.

Mesterova, J., Prochazka, J., Vaculik, M. & Smutny, P. (2015). Relationship between self-

efficacy, transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Advanced

Management, 3 (2): 109 – 122.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent, New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Professional.

Murphy, E., & Johnson, S. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development:

Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 459-470.

Murphy, S.E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience and self-efficacy to group

performance under evaluation apprehension (Doctoral dissertation). University of

Wasington.

Murphy, J. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58(10),

pp.14-17.

Ng, K.Y., Ang, S. & Chan, K.Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated

mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 93(4), p.733.

Offermann, L. & Coats, M. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over

two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522.

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content,

structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43−58.

Oliver, P., Gottfried, A., Guerin, D., Gottfried, A., Reichard, R. and Riggio, R. (2011).

Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential:

A longitudinal mediational analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 535-544.

Oakes, J.M., & Rossi, R.H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current

practices and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine, 56(4), 769–

784.

Paglis, L.L., & Green, S.G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers motivation for

leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215 235.

Polidano, C., Hanel, B. & Buddelmeyer, H. (2013). Explaining the socio-economic status

completion gap. Education Economics, 21(3), 203-247.

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2007). The building blocks of leader development: A

psychological conceptual framework, Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 28(7), 664-684.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

42(1), 185-227.

Reynolds, T. (2009). Exploring the Absent/Present Dilemma: Black Fathers, Family

Relationships, and Social Capital in Britain. The ANNALS of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 12 – 28.

Resick, C. J., D. S. Whitman, S. M. Weingarden & Hiller, N.J. (2009). The Bright-Side and

Dark-Sideof CEO Personality: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Narcissism,

Transformational Leadership, andStrategic Inﬂuence. Journal of Applied Psychology

94(6), 1365–1381.

Riggio, R. & D. Mumford, M. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Longitudinal studies

of leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 453-456.

Rumberger, R. W., & Lamb, S. P. (2003). The early employment and further education

experiences of high school dropouts: A comparative study of the United States and

Australia. Economics of Education Review, 22(4), 353–366.

Schermerhorn, J.R. & Harris Bond, M. (1997). Cross‐cultural leadership dynamics in

collectivism and high power distance settings. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 18, 187-193.

Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager

think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49(7/8), 353-363.

Selzer, R., Howton, A. & Wallace, F. (2017). Rethinking women’s leadership development:

Voices from the trenches. Administrative Sciences, 7 (18), 1 – 20.

Seibert, S. E., Sargent, L. D., Kraimer, M. L. & Kiazad, K. (2017). Linking developmental

experiences to leader effectiveness and promotability: The mediating role of leadership

self-efficacy and mentor network. Personnel Psychology, 70, 357 – 397.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with

linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational research methods, 13(3), 456-

476.

Simon, S., & C. Hoyt. (2012). Exploring the effect of media images on women's leadership

self-perceptions and aspirations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 232-

245.

Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review

of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N.E. and Marmot, M.G., (2003). Subjective social status: its

determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study.

Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321-1333.

Sugiyama, K., Cavanagh, K. V., Van Esch, C., Bilimoria, D. & Brown, C. (2016). Inclusive

leadership development: Drawing from pedagogies of women’s and general leadership

development programs. Journal of Management Education, 40 (3), 253 – 292.

Sy, T., Shore, L. M., Strauss, J., Shore, T. H., Tram, S., Whiteley, P., & Ikeda-Muromachi, K.

(2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race–occupation fit: The case of Asian

Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 902-919.

Tanner, J. L., & Arnett, J. (2009). The emergence of 'emerging adulthood': The new life stage

between adolescence and young adulthood. In Furlong, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Youth

and Young Adulthood: New perspectives and agendas (pp.39-45). London: Routledge.

Türetgen, I. Ö., Unsal, P., & Dural, U. (2017) The role of leadership perception as a mediator

between managers’ self-monitoring and subordinate attitudes. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 157(3), 295 – 307.

Van Quaquebeke, N., Graf, M. M. & Eckloff, T., (2014). What do leaders have to live up to?

Contrasting the effects of central tendency versus ideal-based leader prototypes in

leader categorization processes. Leadership, 10(2), 191 – 217.

Van Quaquebeke, N., Van Knippenberg, D. & Brodbeck, C. F. (2011). More than meets the

eye: The role of subordinates' self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 367−382.

Villanueva, J.J. and Sánchez, J.C. (2007), Trait emotional intelligence and leadership self-

efficacy: their relationship with collective efficacy, Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10

(2), 349-357.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. London:

Routledge.

Williams, L. J. & O'Boyle Jr, E. H. (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables

and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels.

Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 233-242.

Yoder, J. D., Christopher, J., & Holmes, J. D. (2008). Are television commercials still

achievement scripts for women? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(3), 303-311.

Figure 1: Hypothesised Model

H1 Leadership Motivation prototypes to Lead

H2 Mediation: H3

Leadership Self Efficacy

H7 H6 H4 H5 Socio-Economic Moderated Mediation: H9 Status

Gender Moderated Mediation: H8

Table 1. Means, SDs and intercorrelations among main study variables in both samples

Variables UK UK Japan Japan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M SD M SD

1. Gender .49 .50 .52 .50 --- .02 .09 .19 .13 .04 .12 .10

2. Socio-economic status 5.60 1.94 5.48 1.77 .03 --- .39*** .29* .28* .27* .15 .13

3. Leadership self-perceptions 3.91 .53 5.78 1.41 -.08 .33** --- .85** .66** .40** .15* .50** (Positive ILTs) 4. Leadership self-perceptions 4.59 1.24 5.57 1.60 .14* .25** .52** --- .76** .36** -.07 .52** (Negative ILTs)

5. Leadership self-efficacy 4.64 .78 3.39 .88 .07 .28** .70** .57** --- .27** -.04 .63**

6. Socio-normative MTL 4.75 1.06 3.91 1.05 -.02 .14** .52** .36** .55** --- -.00 .17

7. Non-calculative MTL 3.87 1.06 4.08 1.61 -.02 -.08 .14* -.24** .22** .17** --- -.12

8. Affective MTL 4.22 .99 2.10 .68 .06 .13* .55** .41** .79** .57** .25** ---

*p < .05; **p < .01; N =267; ILTs = Implicit Leadership Theories; MTL = Motivation to Lead UK, N = 267; Japan, N = 127 Note: UK sample correlations are below the diagonal and Japan sample correlations are above the diagonal.

Table 2: Regression results of PROCESS for the moderating role of gender in the relationship between leadership self-perceptions (positive ILTs) on leader self-efficacy, affective, socio-normative and non-calculative MTL.

Path Estimated Leader Self-Efficacy Affective MTL Socio-normative MTL Non-calculative MTL UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan

Gender .19** (.06) .12 (.12) .01 (.07) .02 (.09) -.05 (.10) .01 (.18) -.07 (.19) .41 (.28)

Self-perceptions- 1.02*** (.07) .40*** .04) .01 (.10) .08 (.06) .53** (.16) .25** (.08) -.01 (.16) .33* (.16) positive ILTs

Leadership self-efficacy 1.04*** (.06) .41*** (.09) .52*** (.11) .00 (.01) .36** (.12) -.54 (.25) (LSE) Socio-economic status .02 (.02) .01 (.04) -.05** (.02) -.03 (.03) -.03 (.03) .08 (.05) -.08* (.03) .10 (.08) (SES)

Positive ILTs x Gender .08 (.14) .15 (.08)

LSE X Gender .20* (.09) .02 (.12) .28* (.12) .23 (.26) .23 (.19) -.01 (.45)

R2 .50*** .46*** .64*** .42*** .35*** .18** .07** .09

Note: Table values are path estimates from the estimated model and their respective standard errors. Entries are unstandardized coefficient estimates. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ILTs = Implicit Leadership Theories

Table 3: Regression results of PROCESS for the moderating role of gender in the relationship between leadership self-perceptions (negative ILTs) on leader self-efficacy, affective, socio-normative and non-calculative MTL.

Path Estimated Leader Self-Efficacy Affective MTL Socio-normative MTL Non-calculative MTL UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan

Gender .06* (.02) .03 (.02) -.05 (.01) -.02 (.02) -.01 (.03) .11* (.05) -.05 (.02) .17* (.08)

Self-perceptions .33*** (.03) .40*** (.03) -.04 (.04) .04 (.05) .07 (.06) .21* (.09) -.46*** (.06) -.11 (.14) (negative ILTs)

Leadership self-efficacy 1.08*** (.05) .44*** (.05) .70*** (.09) -.04 (.18) .75** (.09) -.06 (.28) (LSE) Socio-economic status -.02 (.08) .09 (.10) .02* (.09) .02 (.09) -.14 (.11) .02 (.18) .04 (.11) .42 (.29) (SES)

Positive ILTs x Gender -.01 (.06) .11 (.06)

LSE X Gender .20* (.09) .02 (.12) .35** (.12) .22 (.25) .16 (.17) .00 (.44)

R2 .36*** .60*** .64*** .41*** .32*** .17** .25** .05

Table 4: Regression results of PROCESS for the moderating role of Socio-economic status (SES) in the relationship between leadership self- perceptions (positive ILTs) on leader self-efficacy, affective, socio-normative and non-calculative MTL.

Path Estimated Leader Self-Efficacy Affective MTL Socio-normative MTL Non-calculative MTL UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan

Gender .19* (.07) .12 (.12) .02 (.07) .02 (.09) -.04 (.11) .01 (.18) -.06 (.12) .41 (.28)

Self-perceptions- 1.00*** (.08) .38*** (.04) .03 (.10) .06 (.06) .56** (.16) .24** (.07) .02 (.16) .33** (.16) positive ILTs

Leadership self-efficacy 1.03*** (.06) .42*** (.09) .50*** (.11) .01 (.15) .31** (.13) -.54* (.24) (LSE) Socio-economic status .02 (.02) .00 (.04) -.05** (.01) -.03 (.03) -.03 (.03) .07 (.05) -.07 (.03) .10 (.08) (SES)

Positive ILTs x SES .05 (.04) -.03* (.01) LSE X SES -.02 (.02) -.04 (.04) -.02 (.04) -.03 (.08) .04 (.05) -.00 (.12)

R2 .51*** .59*** .64*** .43*** .34*** .17** .07** .09

Table 5: Regression results of PROCESS for the moderating role of Socio-economic status (SES) in the relationship between leadership self- perceptions (negative ILTs) on leader self-efficacy, affective, socio-normative and non-calculative MTL.

Path Estimated Leader Self-Efficacy Affective MTL Socio-normative MTL Non-calculative MTL UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan UK Japan

Gender -.01 (.07) .09 (.10) .02 (.07) .03 (.09) -.13 (.11) .02 (.18) .04 (.12) .43 (.29)

Self-perceptions - .33*** (.03) .40*** (.03) -.05 (.04) .03 (.05) .06 (.06) .20* (.08) -.46*** (.06) -.12 (.14) negative ILTs

Leadership self-efficacy 1.09*** (.05) .43*** (.10) .70*** (.09) -.03 (.17) .72*** (.09) -.06 (.27) (LSE) Socio-economic status .06** (.02) .03 (.03) -.05** (.01) -.02 (.02) -.01 (.03) .10 (.05) -.05 (.02) .17* (.08) (SES)

Negative ILTs x SES .03** (.04) -.00 (.01)

LSE X SES -.02 (.02) -.05 (.04) -.02 (.04) -.05 (.08) .03 (.04) -.04 (.12)

R2 .36*** .59*** .64*** .43*** .30*** .16** .25*** .05

Figure 2. Interactive effects of Leadership self-efficacy(LSE) and Gender on Affective Motivation to Lead (UK sample).

LowFemale Gender 4.5 HighMale Gender 4

3.5

2.5 Affective MTL Affective

1.5

1 Low Leader efficacy High Leader efficacy

Figure 3. Interactive effects of Leadership self-efficacy(LSE) and Gender on Socio-normative Motivation to Lead (UK sample).

Female

Male

Figure 4. Interactive effects of Self perceptions of negative ILTs and Socio-Economic Status (SES) on Leadership self-efficacy(UK sample).

Figure 5. Interactive effects of Self perceptions of positive ILTs and Socio-Economic Status (SES) on Leadership self-efficacy(Japanese sample).